Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It is a long-settled legal fact that search :marseydetective: engines indexing your shit is not a copyright :marseychingchongpirate: violation and robots.txt is not legally binding in any way. If Reddit :marseychristmasbeheadsnoo: tries to enforce this they'll get their shit kicked in and potentially provide the case which allows for open season :marseyautumn: on AI training too (AI companies paying up for web content :marseyghosthappy: is just being nice, training on data probably doesn't infringe copyright :marseychingchongpirate: under :marseyhole: current law either). Unfortunately, the only company which might try this is like Brave with their search :marseyprostateexam: indexer but they should :marseynorm: and they would :marseywood: win.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

training on data probably doesn't infringe copyright

People are r-slurred about ai and we are experiencing an Ai hysteria

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Taylor Swift AI porn is copyrighted

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

afaik this could be enforced but as a trademarked likeness not copyright :marseywatermark: as such

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

distortion of author's moral rights or something. that's perpetual

@J @WeihnachtenSalvador

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

that work only work for 70 years but we can be sure they still wont allow ai porn of famous people

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no moral rights of an author are in perpetuity. i cant republish copyrightfree books under my name

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You can change it, retold it and use the characters. That's how we have the Pooh horror movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh:_Blood_and_Honey

You can tell AI to write you modern Pooh retelling story (you can't copyright AI work (at least in EU) tho) you can even use Washington ai recreation for your work, you can film porn about him using real actors but when you start using ai to make porn people will go crazy

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

This is what AIphobia looks like.

@Bussy-boy is being harassed right now and @Bussy-boy need legal representation

Trans lives matter

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

shut up @BussyBoy

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No one is silencing @Bussy-boy's voice.

@Bussy-boy WILL be heard.

@Bussy-boy WILL be vindicated.

And you will not stop me.

Trans lives matter

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

To the tune of Vindicated - Dashboard Confessional.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

More comments

That would suggest she is a thing and would need to renew her trademark every 10 years but copyrights don't need to be extended and becomes public domain 70 years after the author dies so we should be able to do some Rosevelt ai porn :marseyderp:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Historical :marseyhwacha: figures are 100% fair game yeah

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

@AlcoholicAttorney I need an IP lawyers opinion (Need that tswizzle goodness). Name your retainer

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Honestly it's such a new emerging area that anything we determine now would likely get overturned within a few years :marseyshrug:.


She probably has some right in California under a right of publicity basis and a revenge porn statute, but it's difficult to say there's a copyright held by Taylor. Generally speaking the person who puts the art into the medium (such as a painting or a photo) owns the copyright. So maybe people who photograph Taylor would have a claim but Taylor herself would have no remedy under copyright law. Unless she herself owns the copyright of the photos used to train the model.


Celebs run into this issue occasionally when they reuse paparazzi photos and get sued for copyright violations :marseyfluffy:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Dont spend it all in one place

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17219300221472645.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Also whether or not AI art is copyrightable is really unknown right now. I'd argue simple promoting would not be, but prompting + inpainting might be enough. It's the minimum under originality.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So you have bad taste in pop stars to jerk off too as well as dictators. :marseynotes:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#taysneer:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't like her her face details are pointy

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Keep yourself safe Tay denier

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

@Redactor0

Thats why on this website you need to pretend u like her

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

t. :chinkbitch#: aficionado

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I think :marseyoscargamble: quite strongly that you should :marseynorm: have some sort of right :marseymoreyouknow: to train :marseytransmerchant: foundation :marseyeff: models since it really :marseythinkorino2: can substitute for the original content, but I don't think :marseyquestion: it meets the existing test in most cases :marseystalker: (certainly not in principle vs cherrypicked examples like the NYT)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I also think :marseynoooticer: any meaningfully scary :marseyspookysmile: AI would :marseymid: be able to generalise sufficiently from public domain content :marseyregular: to make this void and the training data race is a distraction

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One wrinkle is that Reddit :marseydownvotemad: could block :marseyerasure: scraping/arrange things that it would :marseymid: be "hacking" for a search :marseydetective: bot to access :marsey403: their site, but that's an unwinnable arms race for the site.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One wrinkle is that Reddit could block scraping/arrange things that it would be "hacking" for a search bot to access their site, but that's an unwinnable arms race for the site.

Which is why they will likely do it, reddit really is that shortsighted.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

training on data probably doesn't infringe copyright

Is it a fair use thing? Seems kind of hard to bucket into those categories.

I was thinking it would be potentially lucrative to upload a bunch of images under a special "no AI" license such that try poison any models trained on them kind of like the GPL.

I think this is going to become a very interesting and rslurred legal thing over the next decade or so. Ultimately the outcome will be that we get cucked as much as legally possible to the benefit of whatever legal entity has the most money to throw at lobbying.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm sure @NotCoryDoctorow has written up a storm :marseyrain: on this, but no it's not a fair use in the sense of reaction :marseypsycho: videos thing, the claim is that shuffling numbers :marseynoooticer: inside :marseyteapot: your LLM doesn't "reproduce" the content :marseyregular: just as ranking urls in your search :marseydetective: index doesn't reproduce blogposts.

For details on the AI see step 2 here or this 2006 case which established Google :marseygetgle: was allowed to cache webpages.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.